Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: scoping to an identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID), the behavior of omitting the key to list all, and that it avoids re-derivation. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each efficiently delivering essential information: main action, usage scenario with examples, and pairing with sibling tools. No redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and thorough annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, scoping, and relationships to related tools. It is fully self-contained for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter already described as the key to retrieve or omit to list all. The description reinforces this and adds concrete examples of key values (e.g., 'user_research_topic'), which provides additional context beyond the schema's generic description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the verb 'Retrieve' and 'list', identifies the resource ('value previously saved via remember'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'remember' and 'forget' by specifying its reading role. Examples of stored data (ticker, address, notes) clarify the scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states when to use the tool ('to look up context the agent stored earlier') and implies when not to (when saving or deleting, use 'remember' or 'forget' instead). It names these alternatives explicitly, providing complete usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.